Is Labeling Evolution as Just a Theory in Textbooks a Reasonable Approach?

[Gokul43201]

If aliens landed at the White House and explained they traveled a great distance and have been watching our planet and our development for a long time and that their civilization was millions of years old. Then they further described their belief in God based on BELIEF ONLY...no proof...would you question their belief?

I wouldn't question it. I would reject it as claptrap. They can perform technological wonders that amaze me; but it wouldn't change my opinion about their god.

 

[vivesdn]

Would they have an inherent greater level of creditability or would they be asked for proof of their BELIEFS?

The most strange, irrational beliefs can appear on the most lucid brains. Belief is for sure formed on a completely different brain area than that where questions are created and answered. And, of course, this has been enhanced by evolution as beliefs allow a group of people to feel part of it, who, as a group, will have advantage over individuals not belonging to any group.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't need faith to feel an electrical shock. Or are you suggesting that God is manipulating my voltmeter? If God is a trickster, that could be true.

We come up with theories to explain observations. But I don't need a theory to make an observation.

Some people feel better when they pray...or when they silently help someone else.

Radical elements excluded...not talking about extremism of ANY type...don't rebut with an extremist example.

Most religions provide a frame work for good behavior...if they also allow people to feel good and productive and provide benefits to others...I don't think a meter is required to measure that type of "good" either.

 

[WhoWee]

The most strange, irrational beliefs can appear on the most lucid brains. Belief is for sure formed on a completely different brain area than that where questions are created and answered. And, of course, this has been enhanced by evolution as beliefs allow a group of people to feel part of it, who, as a group, will have advantage over individuals not belonging to any group.

Even if the BELIEF was passed on for millions of years? I'll make a note not to debate with you.

 

[WhoWee]

I wouldn't question it. I would reject it as claptrap. They can perform technological wonders that amaze me; but it wouldn't change my opinion about their god.

What kind of proof WOULD you require?

 

[Gokul43201]

What kind of proof WOULD you require?

Anything based on a system that can succeed (at explaining how things work) at least as well as the scientific method we have on earth.

 

[Gokul43201]

Some people feel better when they pray...or when they silently help someone else.

I would go further and say that virtually all people that believe in a god that answers prayers feel better when they pray, and virtually all people that believe in the virtue of helping others (whether that belief arise out of religious acceptance or some form of empirically based reasoning) will feel better after helping someone. This needs no invocation of supernatural phenomena to explain (not saying that you did, either).

What is more interesting is that people that pray regularly appear to be more healthy (will dig for citation upon request) than those who don't. Part of this is explained by the social network provided by religious organizations like churches (many of which participate actively in health issues, provide periodic medical tests, etc.) but a significant part is associated with a placebo-like psychosomatic effect associated directly with accepting ideas of a benevolent god. This portion of the effect is strong enough that believers in a punitive god have been measured with poorer health than believers in a forgiving god (again, will look for citation in spare time, probably over the weekend).

 

[Moridin]

As for evolution, I wouldn't say that it's proven, so it is only a theory right? A theory becomes fact when it's 100% proven. The fact is that evolution is not 100% proven. No one knows where man came from. (Last time I checked, some company in the UK would pay you $250,000 if you found out). There are other oddities in nature that don't make sense either. For it to be banned in a school is a bit extreme though.

A scientific theory is not guesswork. It is precisely defined as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses"[1]. If by "proven", you mean "there exists a massive amount of conclusive evidence for the fact of evolution", then evolution is indeed "proven".

We do know where humans come from, they share a common ancestor with all life on earth[2]. Note that according to religious scientists such as Kenneth Miller, this is entirely compatible with a religious world view[3][4].

[1] http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2
[2] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
[3]
[4]

 

[hokie1]

I would offer that there is a difference between evolution and Dawinism or other evolutionary theory.

Evolution is a fact. It is an observation that all life appears to be related, uses similar mechanisms, ...

Darwinism is a theory to explain these facts. Did evolution happen? Yes. Once there were no fishes in the ocean and today there are. Once there were no mammals or birds and today there are. Where did they come from? Darwin proposed a theory. Lamarck proposed a theory. Gould proposed a theory. Which theory appears to work the best? Most scientists would say Darwin's.

As Moridin so properly stated it, "A scientific theory is not guesswork."

 

[w3390]

An excellent book on the subject is Philip Kitcher's Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism.

 

[WhoWee]

I would offer that there is a difference between evolution and Dawinism or other evolutionary theory.

Evolution is a fact. It is an observation that all life appears to be related, uses similar mechanisms, ...

Darwinism is a theory to explain these facts. Did evolution happen? Yes. Once there were no fishes in the ocean and today there are. Once there were no mammals or birds and today there are. Where did they come from? Darwin proposed a theory. Lamarck proposed a theory. Gould proposed a theory. Which theory appears to work the best? Most scientists would say Darwin's.

As Moridin so properly stated it, "A scientific theory is not guesswork."

Again, you can prove life is related, but you can't prove WHERE it came from...the possibility that some "being" "stocked the pond" is not impossible.

 

[Moridin]

Again, you can prove life is related, but you can't prove WHERE it came from...the possibility that some "being" "stocked the pond" is not impossible.

Evolution is about the diversity of life, not about its formation or origin. That is the field of abiogenesis. It could very well be the case that insane space coffee mugs created life, evolution and universal common descent would still stand firm because of its supporting evidence[1].

[1] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[Gokul43201]

Again, you can prove life is related, but you can't prove WHERE it came from...

Sounds like you are talking about abiogenesis, rather than evolution. Nevertheless, there is no reason that abiogenesis be fundamentally unprovable (accepting the loose usage whereby other things in science are provable). Nor should "stocked-the-pond-genesis" be.

the possibility that some "being" "stocked the pond" is not impossible.

Nor is it impossible that all things on Earth are being held down by invisible elastic bands fastened by pixies and fairies. But that is not considered a good reason to reject current theories of gravity.

 

[WhoWee]

Sounds like you are talking about abiogenesis, rather than evolution. Nevertheless, there is no reason that abiogenesis be fundamentally unprovable (accepting the loose usage whereby other things in science are provable). Nor should "stocked-the-pond-genesis" be.

Nor is it impossible that all things on Earth are being held down by invisible elastic bands fastened by pixies and fairies. But that is not considered a good reason to reject current theories of gravity.

Have millions of people over a few thousand years passed down stories of invisible elastic bands fastened by pixies and fairies? Is there a best seller on this topic?

It's easy to say "you have no proof" and dismiss something you are uncomfortable with...because you don't have an answer...by making lite of it or the person presenting the argument.

However, millions of people, from multiple religions, have believed in something similar for a long time. Until you can absolutely prove your opinion...keep an open mind...it's less stressful.

I don't have an agenda...all I'm asking is for everyone to be fair and consider all realistically possible explanations...it's very possible that "the elements of life" fell from the sky.

There is no reason to believe that Earth is where all life began.

 

[Moridin]

Ah the classic "lots of people believe in it and have done so through the ages, so it must be true" argument. That statement contains two formal fallacies called "argument from popularity" and "arguments from tradition". A lot of people have believed that witches and demons cause disease, does this mean that bacteria, viruses and parasites do not exist? According to your logic, yes.

There is absolutely no reason to consider positions or hold positions as valid if it cannot be backed up by any theory or research. As always, there is a difference between having an open mind and having a hole in your head from which your brain falls out.

 

[WhoWee]

Ah the classic "lots of people believe in it and have done so through the ages, so it must be true" argument. That statement contains two formal fallacies called "argument from popularity" and "arguments from tradition". A lot of people have believed that witches and demons cause disease, does this mean that bacteria, viruses and parasites do not exist? According to your logic, yes.

There is absolutely no reason to consider positions or hold positions as valid if it cannot be backed up by any theory or research. As always, there is a difference between having an open mind and having a hole in your head from which your brain falls out.

Why are we looking for life in space?

Are we looking for a cure for brains falling out of holes in heads...or answers to things we can't explain?

 

[Moridin]

Why are we looking for life in space?

Are we looking for a cure for brains falling out of holes in heads...or answers to things we can't explain?

I noticed that your reply did not attempt to refute or address any of the arguments I made. Would you be so kind as to address them? Thank you.

 

[Gokul43201]

Have millions of people over a few thousand years passed down stories of invisible elastic bands fastened by pixies and fairies? Is there a best seller on this topic?

I guess I must have also missed the Pond Stocking thriller! Would you like me to base my judgment of Global Climate trends on the box office returns of Al Gore's movie?

It's easy to say "you have no proof" and dismiss something you are uncomfortable with...

It has nothing to do with comfort and everything to with rationale.

because you don't have an answer...by making lite of it or the person presenting the argument.

And when I don't have an answer, I will admit that I don't have the answer rather than seek comfort under the nearest story of refuge.

However, millions of people, from multiple religions, have believed in something similar for a long time.

Millions of people believed that diseases were spontaneously generated and most attributed supernatural causes and remedies to them. That only changed significantly around the mid-to-late 19th century. Heck, millions of people still believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. There are dozens of myths, superstitions and other common but unsubstantiated (or even thoroughly debunked) beliefs that are still held by millions and millions of people.

Until you can absolutely prove your opinion...

In science, you can not "absolutely prove" anything.

keep an open mind...

I do keep an open mind ... to any ideas that can be tested by the scientific method. And if a well established idea fails to support new data, I will be ready to reject its validity within the new regime of relevance. If I were a strictly religious person, however, there is no scope for me to be open minded to the possibility that everything I've been told may turn out to be wrong.

it's less stressful.

I guess it probably is.

I don't have an agenda...all I'm asking is for everyone to be fair and consider all realistically possible explanations...it's very possible that "the elements of life" fell from the sky.

It's not for the layman to go about considering or passing judgments on these things. We leave that to the experts.

There is no reason to believe that Earth is where all life began.

Even the experts do not claim that Earth is where all life began.

PS: I'm slow. I now see that Moridin made similar points a couple of posts ago.

 

[WhoWee]

I noticed that your reply did not attempt to refute or address any of the arguments I made. Would you be so kind as to address them? Thank you.

My response was for GoKul and his pixies. I don't believe that if enough people believe something it must be true.

However, many people think there is other life in the Universe and still more believe in a superior being...not of this planet. I choose not to dismiss them as having holes in their heads.

Until someone can PROVE that God, and aliens and other life in the Universe DOES NOT exist...the discussion will continue...like it or not.

 

[Gokul43201]

My response was for GoKul and his pixies.

But you responded to my pixie argument by arguing on the basis of popularity. Besides, if you took my pixie argument literally as the only possible alternative to gravity, rather than to represent a whole host of "not impossible" options, then let me assure you now that I did not intend the former interpreatation.

Until someone can PROVE that God, and aliens and other life in the Universe DOES NOT exist...

The thread is not about the existence of a god. It is about the theory of evolution. And while they are related, one can easily discuss the latter without any need to address the former. And writing the word 'prove' in caps does not help your argument, especially since the existence of gods or aliens or any other life outside Earth does not invalidate the theory of evolution of life on earth.

 

[WhoWee]

But you responded to my pixie argument by arguing on the basis of popularity. Besides, if you took my pixie argument literally as the only possible alternative to gravity, rather than to represent a whole host of "not impossible" options, then let me assure you now that I did not intend the former interpreatation.

The thread is not about the existence of a god. It is about the theory of evolution. And while they are related, one can easily discuss the latter without any need to address the former. And writing the word 'prove' in caps does not help your argument, especially since the existence of gods or aliens or any other life outside Earth does not invalidate the theory of evolution of life on earth.

Again, we don't know WHERE life came from...just that it's all related. The possibility that life came here from somewhere else can not be ruled out based on the fact now available.

 

[Gokul43201]

Again, we don't know WHERE life came from...just that it's all related. The possibility that life came here from somewhere else can not be ruled out based on the fact now available.

And in fact, that is one of the possibilities considered for the beginnings of life on earth. Still, nothing about it invalidates the theory of evolution. And to repeat this for the n'th time now, you are questioning abiogenesis, not evolution.

PS: We know a lot more than "just that it's all related". What do you mean by that anyway?

 

[WhoWee]

And in fact, that is one of the possibilities considered for the beginnings of life on earth. Still, nothing about it invalidates the theory of evolution. And to repeat this for the n'th time now, you are questioning abiogenesis, not evolution.

PS: We know a lot more than "just that it's all related". What do you mean by that anyway?

Common characteristics...that's all.

Again, I got into this discussion with a silly post...not an agenda:

This discussion only encourages me to write that book I keep threatening..."I Believe, Yet Darwin Was Right".

Basically, God is an alien (not FROM this planet) and man (original aliens) came here from somewhere else (don't know where - far, far away). At some point breeding with monkeys happened (maybe became necessary) and the rest is in our textbooks...starting to sound like a best seller?

This argument allows EVERYONE to be a little bit right and nobody is 100% wrong...again, starting to sound good?

 

[russ_watters]

Part of the divine plan that we aren't supposed to understand.

Yes, which I guess is ok, since the ID/creationism argument reduces to 'god is screwing with us'.

 

[Gokul43201]

Common characteristics...that's all.

Again, it's not clear what you mean by that, but we know a whole lot more than just that A and B shared some common characteristics.

 

[BoomBoom]

Why is there an apparent trend to transition from lower life forms to higher life forms instead of speciation of lower life forms without ever producing a higher life form?

I would love to hear what your definition of "lower" and "higher" life forms is.

Adaptation and speciation that result in a physiological changes occur usually when a species' environmental conditions change. So whatever your definition of "lower" or "higher" life forms is, if a species always trends to be better suited to the environment in which it lives, then isn't that always going to be a trend to a "higher" life form?

So the last part, "speciation of lower life forms without ever producing a higher life form", makes no sense to me.

 

[rcgldr]

I would love to hear what your definition of "lower" and "higher" life forms is.

More cells per individual? More complexity? Intelligience versus simplicity or redudancy or tolerance to a range of environments?

if a species always trends to be better suited to the environment in which it lives, then isn't that always going to be a trend to a "higher" life form?

I would assume "higher" life forms are more sensitive to the environment than "lower" life forms, so it would seem that "lower" life forms would be better suited over a larger range of environments.

So the last part, "speciation of lower life forms without ever producing a higher life form", makes no sense to me.

Increasing the variety of lower life forms without ever creating a higher life form.

 

[Gokul43201]

I would assume "higher" life forms are more sensitive to the environment than "lower" life forms, so it would seem that "lower" life forms would be better suited over a larger range of environments.

Why do you assume that? I know very little about the field, so I ask.

 

[rcgldr]

I would assume "higher" life forms are more sensitive to the environment than "lower" life forms, so it would seem that "lower" life forms would be better suited over a larger range of environments.

Why do you assume that? I know very little about the field, so I ask.

My assumption is based on a few examples, not general knowledge of the suubject. Bacteria can survive in a broader range of enviroments than mammals. Insects can tolerate much more radiation than mammals.

 

[Gokul43201]

But those are the bacteria and insects that have survived till today. Perhaps there have been many more bacteria that died out along the way, giving rise to more sturdy organisms. I would expect those bacteria that have survived the last couple billion or so years to have evolved high resistance to environmental factors.